Who hit harder....Foreman or Marciano?

I did not ignore it, just wrote it off as a win over a shot fighter.
Not to mention, I'd say you ignore plenty of facts yourself friend, both in this debate as well as many others. You're already ingnoring:

A. Foreman had a higher win/ko percentage than any lineal champion in history..

B. Foreman, KO'd more men, who were larger on average, did so in less rounds and with less punches ( never mind your crap about needing to floor fighters more, as Marciano wouldn't floor many of the fighters Foreman KO'd. )

C. Foreman scored early round knockouts over fighters who were younger and in some cases rated higher on a lot of people's all time lists.

How many people rate Walcott higher than Frazier? How many times was Frazier knocked out in his career, and list those who did it... How many times was Walcott Ko'd? Who did it? My point has been made....

Do you honestly think that this was the first shot that Marciano hit him with in 13 rounds? Do you also honestly think that fatigue has nothing to do with it? The central and peripheral nervous systems tire over long periods of strenuous activity, making traumatic blows more damaging. The same goes in other sports. Football players tend to become more prone to paralizing injuries as they fatigue, despite taking greater hits with more force at an earlier stage in the game...Walcott getting knocked out for 3 minutes, or whatever doesn't necessarily mean that Marciano hit harder than Foreman. Regardless of weather you agree with my rebuddle.

I think you're looking rather silly yourself

If you're trying to prove that Marciano hit harder than Foreman, then I DO HAVE A CASE....... Foreman's biggest KO wins did not come against sub 200 Lb fighters who were 37+ years old, had multiple defeats, and were exhausted to ****.. Make what you will about Rocky's windstorm of a punch, but this does not prove that he hit harder than Foreman, as the circumstances do not make for such a claim, nor comparison.

Who cares?

Oh this is precious.

Somehow, the collosal KO of a 45 year old man on the comeback trail, over a 28 year old champion who is 35-0, is not as impressive as the KO of a 28 year old contender over a 37 year old veteran, who was previously beaten 16 times, and stopped on 4 occasions. Not to mention, in a fight that stretched 13 rounds, and probably had more to do with fatigue, than a good shot that came at the last minute... Once again, you emphasize the points that YOU feel are most pertinant, but ingnore the whole picture...

Great one MF....:good ( whatever that stands for )

Once again, Foreman GENERALLY, fought larger men who were in their primes, had higher status, lost earlier, and with less shots on most occasions. If you're going by what was GENERALLY the case, then I just gave you the criteria to go by. Or are you going to pick and chose a single criterian, ( as you usually do ), that YOU feel outweighs the multiple factors that others have provided?

P.S. I appologize if I sounded a tad obnoxious in this post, but keep in mind, I rarely if ever have gone after your posts the way you usually go after mine. If anyone has come off as being a bit arrogant here, it was you before it was me, even if you might not have intended to MF..

 

Marciano had a higher fight/KO percentage than any lineal champion- including Foreman- in history, which is a more valid tally.

"less rounds"
- Let it be pointed out that Marciano has a substantially higher percentage of first-round knockouts out of his total fights than Foreman. If you want to talk total mean average number of rounds per knockout, Foreman would probably come out ahead, but let it be further pointed out that this is largely because Marciano had much better stamina and so scored more knockouts deep into fights, whereas Foreman generally didn't get you at all if he didn't get you early (notice I said GENERALLY- I acknowledge he did stop Peralta and Moorer once apiece in the later rounds).
"less punches"
-The needing-to-floor-fighters-more thing is not "crap" at all. It's a valid observation. Even if you watch Foreman against obscure journeymen, he usually has to bounce them up and down a fair amount before he stops them. It's virtually never that you see Foreman just pop someone on the jaw once out of the blue and end the fight. Marciano regularly flattened journeymen- including big ones- with single shots, and did so to multiple elite fighters as well. As I have discussed before and will do again in this post, I actually DON'T think this is because Foreman hit less "hard" (*notice I am making an effort to analyze the data and AM NOT simply taking a given piece of data and declaring that there is one and only one valid interpretation of it, that being the one I like best)- rather, I think it is because of the differing quality of his punches and his offense as a whole.

True.

What you don't seem to be acknowledging here is the obvious difference in degree and type of occurence. Walcott had not taken any sustained, brutal battering up to that point; granted, he had been in a fight and was not as fresh as a daisy, but he had never been wobbled or taken a sustained attack. By his own account, he felt great going into the last round. And this is just plain not the sort of knockout in which there is room for doubt about such a thing as a guy having gone down from exhaustion; a punch that- without your having been at all wobbled before- knocks you out so cold you slump limply into the ropes, flop face-first onto the floor and are counted out without even showing a sign of life, then are revived several 10-counts worth later by doctors, will put you out any time it lands.

No, it does not necessarily mean such a thing, but it is obviously evidence which lends credence to such a claim, which is all that can be mustered in this thread.

This looks like a good occasion for a poll to me.

Read the analysis in the first post I made on this thread for my opinion about how "hard" each man hit relative to the other one. I believe that Marciano- at least in 1952 and earlier- had (not a "harder," but) a more piercing, concussive sort of punch, as evidenced by his repeated one-or-two-punch knockouts over elite fighters (Layne, Matthews, Walcott twice), which do, in fact, constitute a MUCH more impressive resume of such wins than Foreman can muster, but that Foreman's punches were "harder" in a PSI sense, as evidenced by the way he seems to forcefully move opponents and even bowl them over with his punches- his punches are simply of a blunter quality, a little closer to a push than a bullet, with less concentrated force, so that they slam you around and knock you down with sheer force, but don't directly separate you from your senses and leave you out cold. Hence we see Foreman hurting and bowling guys over earlier and without needing to land so cleanly as Marciano, but failing to keep them down the way Marciano could.

Someone who wants to make a judgment on the question posed at the beginning of this thread which takes all the relevant data into account.

You are at least as guilty of such an action as I am. The WHOLE picture would further include the fact that Walcott- regardless of record statistics which you should be aware are misleading- was a better and much more accomplished fighter than Moorer, that Walcott was knocked clean out cold in stunning fashion and in a clear instance of a single punch ending the fight as opposed to Moorer being fully conscious after being hurt with a prior punch and decked with a one-two, and that

That was really called for, wasn't it?

I rarely, if ever, argue by a "single criterion," and I have certainly not done so in this thread. You are choosing a set of statistics and anecdotal arguments which favor the side of the argument you're arguing and ignoring the rest, and- largely to uphold the other end, as you seem to be haughtily dismissing the idea that anyone could reasonably disagree with you or that any other data could be relevant- I am doing the same for the side I'm taking. PLEASE READ what I write below this.

You want multiple criteria which can be used to reasonably dispute the claim you've just propped up? Here:
Marciano had a higher knockout percentage than Foreman.
Marciano had a higher ratio of first round knockouts out of his fights than Foreman did.
Marciano had far more in the way of sudden one-or-two punch knockouts than Foreman.
Marciano showed absolutely no decrease in power against the big opponents he did face, and, in fact, stopped every single one of them, usually in the first round.

Let it further be pointed out that, though Foreman's opponents were generally younger and bigger, a much higher percentage of them had losing records, and that the "less punches" claim is extremely dubious, especially given that Marciano scored several one-or-two-punch knockouts over elite opponents, which are the obviously the type most directly demonstrative of pure one-punch power, while Foreman on only one instance produced such a knockout.

While I think I pushed it slightly with the "If so, I think you're being very silly" line (*still not a personal attack, only a chiding on a particular stance), I've certainly never gone so far in mocking and at least strongly implying personal insult ("whatever that stands for") to a poster for arguing a (slightly, in this case, as, like I said above, I actually AGREE with you in strict terms) different viewpoint than mine as you have above. I hope that you will attempt to use less of the type of openly-abrasive content you've put forth here in the future, and will watch not to sound arrogant myself.

 

To be perfectly honest, I would rather be hit by Foreman than Marciano. With Foreman, at least a young Foreman, he would throw wider punches, and he was so strong, he would still carry enormous power. But Marciano would wing his punches shorter, and put his entire frame and leverage into them (what he did to, what's his name, Vingo? Carmine Vingo? that was bad).

But getting hit by either of them would knock me out.

So it really doesn't matter who hits harder. They both hit hard!!!

 

Fair points, and good analysis. I agree at some points, while disagreeing at others. Sorry, for my earlier comment..

 

It seems magoo places more emphasis on early round knockout than late round knockouts. I guess David tua with all his late heroic knockouts wasnt as hard a puncher as foreman eh? Guys like mike weaver, joe louis, rocky marciano, david tua these guys had special blend of late one punch clutch power...

 

Marciano kod or ,tkod 9 men over 200lbs.the best of them Louis was past his prime as was Savold who scaled 200lbs when Marciano stopped him,nearly all the others had losing records,Johnny Shkor might have been the best out of the other 200lbs plus guys his record was 29-18-2 and he weighed 2201/2.Foreman obviously kod bigger men and most of them were better men,.Marcianos best wins were over a 37 year old and a 32 year old both slightly past their best.Louis was 36 .

 

In my opinion Marciano is one of the greatest 1 punch KO punchers of all time. I think he has more 1 punch, out cold power than Foreman, but all around Foreman is the harder puncher.